The article has basically nothing to do with the title. It is a recap of the plot of the foundation series and an extended analogy about how trump is the same as the Mule
It's disappointing to start reading a potentially interesting article about Asimov only to find out halfway through it's being used as another anti-Trump piece instead of concluding with anything insightful.
From reading a bunch of biographies from that time, I do get the feeling that buzz was a bit of a loud mouth asshole, but I don’t see Why you think that makes the dedication sarcastic? He wrote this well before he joined nasa
I think the point is they shouldn't pay for the R&D or the construction of the rockets either - just pay for the launches and let the market sort out what vehicles are required.
But doesn't this assume that there will be some sort of 1v1 matchup between the pilots and the drones? I don't see any reason why this should be true, as the drones should be able to be produced much cheaper. So sure, maybe I human pilot could always shoot down a single drone, but how would they go against a swarm of 50 drones all perfectly coordinating with each other.
A fighter jet is still a fighter jet and just getting rid of the pilot isn’t going to make them cost 50x less (just like future autonomous cars aren’t going to be cheaper than what we have now) Also I don’t think the point of op was necessarily to envision a 1v1 scenario but that the AI needs to be at the level of a human more so becouse it is carrying extremely lethal weapons that one would prefer to be used under human (or equivalent) judgement.
Your example of Alan Kay isn't a very good one though, because we can objectively test their opinions on say, the best way to implement `malloc` by having them do it and testing the results against the computer. There is no such equivalent for literature.
Its much easier to manage multiple accounts. I think on the website you can only be logged in as one account at a time. The twitter app has a vertical 'tab' for each account.
> Unfortunately, most of the deplorables would just find new reasons to hate Democrats
That is objectively false - Trump won because white voters in the rust belt swung 25 points from Obama to Trump. If you were right that they voted only Republican out of tribalism then Obama would never have won those states.
Why not? Trump didn't win them by much, but it can still be a big swing if Obama won these states by a lot. A quick google shows that this appears to be the case.
Trump may have won michigan by only 10k votes, but Obama had a margin of half a million in 2012.
